World Day Against the Death Penalty

sponger

chopitdown wrote:

if you wrongly imprison someone you can let them out; if you wrongfully kill someone; they are SOL. they are not equally appropriate measures of punishment; that is why there needs to be every step taken to ensure that a mistake does not happen.

I would think that a vast majority of those who are imprisoned under a false conviction eventually are not let out. Even with the innocence project out there trying to exonerate the falsely convicted, false convictions that are never overturned are still a reality of the justice system.

And so there's still going to be false convictions leading to mistaken identity executions. To say that we should allow the death penalty "as long as every step is taken..." is to disregard the reality of false convictions.

That's why I say...if we assume the death penalty to be right, then we should accept false convictions as a reality and not use it as a means of making the death penalty wrong.

But, I also hold my own logic up to the strict test of consistency. So, it was like last night or so that I said to myself, "If our penal system should really only exist for the sake of separating and rehabilitating, then the following should be true: those nazi war criminals who are living peacefully and lawfully in other countries should be pardoned."

Those nazi war criminals are a perfect example of people who committed atrocities, yet are able to function like normal human beings amongst civilized society.

The reason why they committed those atrocities is not because they're heinous, sick people. The reason why they committed those atrocities is because they were given the power to do it under the right circumstances for it to be carried out.

Now that they have been relieved of that power and removed from those circumstances, they are back to normal. From this point on, justice is in the form of revenge only (aka accountability).

But, by attempting to enforce that justice, we are actually trying to remove ourselves from any responsibility when, in fact, we did have responsibility. We are responsible because if we as a human race cannot prevent shit like that before it happens, then it will always happen regardless of the consequences for those who perpetrate it. So, in effect, we do have that ultimate responsibility.

Puck78

sponger wrote:

I would think that a vast majority of those who are imprisoned under a false conviction eventually are not let out. Even with the innocence project out there trying to exonerate the falsely convicted, false convictions that are never overturned are still a reality of the justice system.

And so there's still going to be false convictions leading to mistaken identity executions. To say that we should allow the death penalty "as long as every step is taken..." is to disregard the reality of false convictions.

That's why I say...if we assume the death penalty to be right, then we should accept false convictions as a reality and not use it as a means of making the death penalty wrong.

But, I also hold my own logic up to the strict test of consistency. So, it was like last night or so that I said to myself, "If our penal system should really only exist for the sake of separating and rehabilitating, then the following should be true: those nazi war criminals who are living peacefully and lawfully in other countries should be pardoned."

Those nazi war criminals are a perfect example of people who committed atrocities, yet are able to function like normal human beings amongst civilized society.

The reason why they committed those atrocities is not because they're heinous, sick people. The reason why they committed those atrocities is because they were given the power to do it under the right circumstances for it to be carried out.

Now that they have been relieved of that power and removed from those circumstances, they are back to normal. From this point on, justice is in the form of revenge only (aka accountability).

But, by attempting to enforce that justice, we are actually trying to remove ourselves from any responsibility when, in fact, we did have responsibility. We are responsible because if we as a human race cannot prevent shit like that before it happens, then it will always happen regardless of the consequences for those who perpetrate it. So, in effect, we do have that ultimate responsibility.

your reasoning lack of the part that justice must not be only to "separate and rehabilitate" but also to act as a deterrant. So that in your example, I think that nazi criminals, but also for example pinochet, should be put in front of justice anyway, even if they are now old and harmless, to show to the world that you can't escape to face justice.
Said this, I'm against death penalty, so even those people that committed crimes against humanity should not be put to death

sponger

Puck78 wrote:

your reasoning lack of the part that justice must not be only to "separate and rehabilitate" but also to act as a deterrant. So that in your example, I think that nazi criminals, but also for example pinochet, should be put in front of justice anyway, even if they are now old and harmless, to show to the world that you can't escape to face justice.

I was waiting for someone to say that.

My rationale is that it's not a deterrent. Nazi war criminals thrived in a society where it wasn't illegal. So, if a nazi situation like that happens in the future, the potential war criminal is not going to be concerned about international tribunals.

The real deterrent is to let these guys remain free so that the world understands what the problem really was -apathy on the part of the world.

I have an analogy and it goes like this. If we the US with our fity states decided to set up a new state, give it complete autonomy, and let it create its own laws, then we as the US could not reasonably prosecute anybody who follows the laws of that state, but not the laws of the US.

It's really our fault for letting that state exist, just as it's really the world's fault for letting fascist germany exist. People like churchill saw that problem way before it happened, but nobody did shit about it. It's that apathy that is the problem, not the war criminals themselves. So, to think that tracking them down and putting them away will make future potential-war criminals think twice is like ignoring what causes war criminals in the first place.

That's why I said in that post that unless we take full responsibility as an international community for what happened in germany, things like what happened in germany will always happen regardless of the consequences that await those who perpetrate it. Fascist regimes would not exist if the people who led them were even remotely concerned about international law.

Puck78

Indeed, death penalty is not a deterrant, multiple studies confirm that, I think you misunderstood what I meant. But other form of penalties (I'm talking in general, of course this might depend on single cases), can work as deterrants.
Paul Rusesabagina, the man that inspired the movie "hotel rwanda" wrote for example that when he started to say to the people committing the genocide "I will tell to the international courts that you've been good with us", they started to help him, because they were scared of that.

sponger

Puck78 wrote:

Indeed, death penalty is not a deterrant, multiple studies confirm that, I think you misunderstood what I meant. But other form of penalties (I'm talking in general, of course this might depend on single cases), can work as deterrants.
Paul Rusesabagina, the man that inspired the movie "hotel rwanda" wrote for example that when he started to say to the people committing the genocide "I will tell to the international courts that you've been good with us", they started to help him, because they were scared of that.

I wasn't referring to the death penalty. I was referring to any penalty.

Regardless of what Rusesabagina said to the mass murderers of rwanda, there is still a crapload of genocide going on in africa to this very day. The international courts know about this. The whole world knows about this.

And that's my point. My point is that the world misses the point. The point is not to put the leaders in jail. The point is to disable the regime. If putting the leaders in jail succceeds in disabling the regime, then obviously that's the right move.

But, that's different from nazi criminals. That regime is broken and those criminals don't pose a threat. There is no practical reason to lock them up other than revenge. And that act of revenge is part of the problem why genocide still exists. The world is too focused on blaming a few responsible individuals, not the duty the rest of us have to disable the influence those few responsible individuals have.

chopitdown

sponger wrote:

I would think that a vast majority of those who are imprisoned under a false conviction eventually are not let out. Even with the innocence project out there trying to exonerate the falsely convicted, false convictions that are never overturned are still a reality of the justice system.

And so there's still going to be false convictions leading to mistaken identity executions. To say that we should allow the death penalty "as long as every step is taken..." is to disregard the reality of false convictions.

That's why I say...if we assume the death penalty to be right, then we should accept false convictions as a reality and not use it as a means of making the death penalty wrong.

But, I also hold my own logic up to the strict test of consistency. So, it was like last night or so that I said to myself, "If our penal system should really only exist for the sake of separating and rehabilitating, then the following should be true: those nazi war criminals who are living peacefully and lawfully in other countries should be pardoned."

Those nazi war criminals are a perfect example of people who committed atrocities, yet are able to function like normal human beings amongst civilized society.

The reason why they committed those atrocities is not because they're heinous, sick people. The reason why they committed those atrocities is because they were given the power to do it under the right circumstances for it to be carried out.

Now that they have been relieved of that power and removed from those circumstances, they are back to normal. From this point on, justice is in the form of revenge only (aka accountability).

But, by attempting to enforce that justice, we are actually trying to remove ourselves from any responsibility when, in fact, we did have responsibility. We are responsible because if we as a human race cannot prevent shit like that before it happens, then it will always happen regardless of the consequences for those who perpetrate it. So, in effect, we do have that ultimate responsibility.

I'll agree that with the imperfect justice system we will have to acknowledge that wrong people may and most likely will be put to death. I don't like the word accept the way you use it but I won't fight over semantics early on monday.
I will take issue with your accusation that the nazi's weren't sick people though. Legality or not something should tell you that performing THOSE experiments on people is wrong. And I feel they should be held accountable for their actions. Who knows, maybe the pain and torture they live with (assumption on my part) is punishment enough; to know every day taht you committed those heinous acts.
I agree that society has a role and should be held accountable; but not so much that the individual can be let off the hook or not held accountable for their actions.

sponger

chopitdown wrote:

I will take issue with your accusation that the nazi's weren't sick people though. Legality or not something should tell you that performing THOSE experiments on people is wrong. I agree that society has a role and should be held accountable; but not so much that the individual can be let off the hook or not held accountable for their actions.

The truth be told, scientific researchers in the US legally do just as sickening, if not worse, on chimpanzees and rats than any nazi dr. ever did to a jew.

The nazis believed that the jews were animals. They really believed this. This was their way of thinking. So, what's the crime here? Thinking that jews are animals? As long as researchers in the US are allowed to virtually torture to death lab animals, then, yes, the only crime committed by nazi death doctors is that they thought of jews as animals.

When the nazi regime was broken up, these heinous sickos moved to other countries and led normal lives. So what does that tell you?

It tells you that there is no such thing as heinous and sick; there's only what is allowed by law and what isn't. We don't put pepole in prison for being sickos. We put them in prison for breaking the law.

Someday, we'll look back and be totally appalled by what we're doing to animals. We won't understand it. In fact, we'll do everything we can to distance ourselves from it. We'll say stuff like, "Only a small portion of the population really supported it." Who knows. But, we probably won't acknowledge that we all had a hand in it by way of our own apathy toward it.

If we all of the sudden made it legal to experiment on people like the way the nazis did, I guarantee we would have no shortage of otherwise "law abiding" doctors to do the job.

One example I can think of is the tuskegee syphilis experiment. I'm sure you already know of these experiments. They involved giving syphillis to unsuspecting black men just to see how the disease goes to work. When penicillin was invented, the doctors deliberately withheld it so that they could observe the progressed stages of the disease.

That's just as sick as any nazi experiment if you ask me. But, it's what our government allowed to happen because black people were animals back then. It didn't take a sick doctor to do those experiments. It took a general consensus of approval.

That's why nazi doctors are not sick and heinous. Apathy is sick and heinous.

Collin

sponger wrote:

The truth be told, scientific researchers in the US legally do just as sickening, if not worse, on chimpanzees and rats than any nazi dr. ever did to a jew.

The nazis believed that the jews were animals. They really believed this. This was their way of thinking. So, what's the crime here? Thinking that jews are animals? As long as researchers in the US are allowed to virtually torture to death lab animals, then, yes, the only crime committed by nazi death doctors is that they thought of jews as animals.

Have you ever read Milan Kundera's The Unbearable Lightness of Being? There's a very interesting part in it, which I happen to agree with. I'll come back to it later on.

However sad it may be, animal testing is not forbidden, it is indeed legal. We can protest against it and do whatever we can to stop it. And you make a point when you say nazi's viewed Jews, homosexuals, Roma as animals and thus their only crime was exactly that and since animal testing is not illegal, their actions may be viewed as "what was, and still is allowed." It's hard to see people as human, when they are starved, when they live, and sometimes eat, their own fæces, they were given numbers...

But the fact is, killing people, torturing people is illegal. And this is where Milan Kundera comes in. In his book he compares the attrocities of the communists with the story of Oedipus.
When Oedipus found out he was responsible for all the mishap in his country he couldn't bare it anymore and stabbed out his own eyes and left his country. Although Oedipus never intended to cause those misfortunes, when he found out, he accepted responsibility. He didn't hide behind lame excuses such as "I didn't know." He felt guilty.

A lot of nazi's hided behind the "Ich habe es nicht gewusst" facade, a way of pushing responsibility away. Though they might not have known, they know now and I think they should be punished. Saying they didn't see the Jews as human is no excuse in my opinion, because they know now. They should, imo, admit their guilt and be punished, though living with knowing what they did must not be easy.

Apathy is sick and heinous.

I agree, but I don't think it's an excuse to hide behind.

chopitdown

sponger wrote:

The truth be told, scientific researchers in the US legally do just as sickening, if not worse, on chimpanzees and rats than any nazi dr. ever did to a jew.

The nazis believed that the jews were animals. They really believed this. This was their way of thinking. So, what's the crime here? Thinking that jews are animals? As long as researchers in the US are allowed to virtually torture to death lab animals, then, yes, the only crime committed by nazi death doctors is that they thought of jews as animals.

When the nazi regime was broken up, these heinous sickos moved to other countries and led normal lives. So what does that tell you?

It tells you that there is no such thing as heinous and sick; there's only what is allowed by law and what isn't. We don't put pepole in prison for being sickos. We put them in prison for breaking the law.

Someday, we'll look back and be totally appalled by what we're doing to animals. We won't understand it. In fact, we'll do everything we can to distance ourselves from it. We'll say stuff like, "Only a small portion of the population really supported it." Who knows. But, we probably won't acknowledge that we all had a hand in it by way of our own apathy toward it.

Put down the A.L.F. literature In order to carry out experiments on animals you have to go through animal research boards and animal review boards which have the general public on them. Yes there are things that are done to animals that CANNOT be done to humans in early phases of research, b/c (imho and a lot of researchers opinions) humans are more important than animals.
I realize that nazi's thought the jews were animals and that is sick and heinous and so was the worlds lack of response in some of those instances.
I don't think that we'll look back on animal research and be upset. If you get a chance to see the movie "something the lord made" I'd do it. It's about early heart surgery; they praciticed on dogs in order to save human lives. It's not just about that, but you catch my drift?

sponger wrote:

If we all of the sudden made it legal to experiment on people like the way the nazis did, I guarantee we would have no shortage of otherwise "law abiding" doctors to do the job.

One example I can think of is the tuskegee syphilis experiment. I'm sure you already know of these experiments. They involved giving syphillis to unsuspecting black men just to see how the disease goes to work. When penicillin was invented, the doctors deliberately withheld it so that they could observe the progressed stages of the disease.

That's just as sick as any nazi experiment if you ask me. But, it's what our government allowed to happen because black people were animals back then. It didn't take a sick doctor to do those experiments. It took a general consensus of approval.

That's why nazi doctors are not sick and heinous. Apathy is sick and heinous.

The Tuskegee experiement was criminal as was the nazi stuff (as a side the medical community learned a lot from those...WHICH IN NO WAY JUSTIFIES IT OR SHOULD EVER BE USED TO CONDONE SUCH ACTIONS). Also, I don't think there was a general consesus of approval for either the nazi's or tuskegee experiments b/c there was a huge outcry once it got public.

The nazi doctors are sick and heinous b/c of what they did just as it's disturbing that society on some level tolerated it. I agree the situation was "right" for those to occurr but that doesn't mean it's not sick or heinous. Plus, wouldn't you try to blend in to society and act normal if you knew the things you did while working in a concentration camp adn you are aware of the public outcry of what happened.

sponger

Collin wrote:

When Oedipus found out he was responsible for all the mishap in his country he couldn't bare it anymore and stabbed out his own eyes and left his country.

Oedipus was a king. Kings represent an absolute monarchy. An absolute monarchy is different from fascism only in the sense that kings supposedly have some kind of bloodline superior to the commoner.

And that's why I think the Oedipus analogy actually supports my stance more than it counters it. Oedipus should never have been king. He should have been elected, and there should have been a parliament or something to that effect. Atrocities are what ALWAYS happen when there is too much of a centralized authority and not enough oversight.

chopitdown wrote:

In order to carry out experiments on animals you have to go through animal research boards and animal review boards which have the general public on them. Yes there are things that are done to animals that CANNOT be done to humans in early phases of research, b/c (imho and a lot of researchers opinions) humans are more important than animals.

In recent research done on primates at columbia university, a test was done on to study the effect of stress on the menstrual cycle. To induce the "stress" part of the experiment, a weight was surgically attached to the skull. Researchers then observed the primate's stress levels resulting from having to walk around with a weight surgically attached to its skull. And what about primates that are injected with AIDS? How about ones that are subjected to electrocution of the testicles to induce ejaculation?

Those sound pretty nazi-like to me. And so because an oversight board approves all of this, that must mean it's ethical? You do make a point that humans do sometimes benefit from those experiments, but using that as a justification is just basically saying that human life is more valuable that an animal's life. So, like I was saying, the difference is that the nazis thought of jews as animals. And if we call thinking of certain people as animals sick and heinous, then I would say that most of the population would qualify as a nazi.

chopitdown wrote:

Also, I don't think there was a general consesus of approval for either the nazi's or tuskegee experiments b/c there was a huge outcry once it got public.

Maybe not a general consensus of the public, but a general consensus in the from of approval from a government body that is in control of the public. My point about the tuskegee experiment is that the doctors who performed that experiment were never classified as "sick and heinous", yet by your defition, they should be.

chopitdown wrote:

The nazi doctors are sick and heinous b/c of what they did just as it's disturbing that society on some level tolerated it. I agree the situation was "right" for those to occurr but that doesn't mean it's not sick or heinous. Plus, wouldn't you try to blend in to society and act normal if you knew the things you did while working in a concentration camp adn you are aware of the public outcry of what happened.

What you're saying there is that the acts that were carried out are sick and heinous. I agree. But, it can't be said that the people who carried them out were sick and heinous.

Like you said, now that they are in a society that disapproves of that behavior, they act normal. Under that rationale, if those people in that normal society were placed in a situation where the government condoned acts that are sick and heinous, they would probably do it. That's why nazi doctors are a product of their situation, not of their own sick and heinous tendencies. And once we acknowledge the situation and the situation alone, we are then better equipped to prevent such occurrences from happening again.

Please refer to the milgram experiments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

65% of the participants allowed themselves to commit what they believed was life-threatening torture on an unwilling individual simply because they were pressured to do so by the test administrator. That's a lot of sick and heinous people out there.

chopitdown

sponger wrote:

In recent research done on primates at columbia university, a test was done on to study the effect of stress on the menstrual cycle. To induce the "stress" part of the experiment, a weight was surgically attached to the skull. Researchers then observed the primate's stress levels resulting from having to walk around with a weight surgically attached to its skull. And what about primates that are injected with AIDS? How about ones that are subjected to electrocution of the testicles to induce ejaculation?

are there other ways the researchers could have induced stress? I don't know. The hard part with human and animal research is trying to make it clean and limit the other factors. And I'll concede it sounds barbaric, but at the same time is it any different than putting a halo on someone who has a cervical fracture? It doesn't hurt to have it in and it looks barbaric to have 4 holes in your head with metal coming out. If you know more about this method of testing than the person who's conducting it, by all means, I'm all ears. But if the PETA literature (sorry, i saw it wasnt A.L.F) says it's mean I don't put a lot of stock in it. but we're not here to debate the merits and methods of this persons work. do you have any references for the electrocution and ejaculation claim? I'm sure they used electrical impulses to induce ejaculation b/c it is a neural response and if you fire the correct stimulus you'll get the desired response...which is not electrocution.

sponger wrote:

Those sound pretty nazi-like to me. And so because an oversight board approves all of this, that must mean it's ethical? You do make a point that humans do sometimes benefit from those experiments, but using that as a justification is just basically saying that human life is more valuable that an animal's life. So, like I was saying, the difference is that the nazis thought of jews as animals. And if we call thinking of certain people as animals sick and heinous, then I would say that most of the population would qualify as a nazi.

I AM saying that humans are more valuable than animals. I'm not saying animals aren't important and we should abuse them, I"m not saying that at all...but I'm also not saying they are on teh same level as humans. Furthermore, I believe since we are better than animals, we have an obligation to make sure we protect them. I'm sure that there cases where animals are abused in scientific work, I'm not naive. But I'm also fairly sure those instances are very few and very far b/t. You were able to give me enough information to find 4 researchers with questionnable procedures. There are thousands of people who do lab based experiments on animals and they dont do those things.

sponger

chopitdown wrote:

but at the same time is it any different than putting a halo on someone who has a cervical fracture? It doesn't hurt to have it in and it looks barbaric to have 4 holes in your head with metal coming out.

You're asking me what the difference is between someone needing a procedure and someone not needing a procedure, but still receiving that procedure anyway because he/she doesn't have a choice and is thought of as a good experiment candidate? You're asking me what the difference is?

I could be wrong, but I would think that a person who just came out of surgery probably needs pain meds. Are these primates getting these pain meds? If so, do they enjoy being on pain meds? Do they enjoy being kept in a cage? You wouldn't think that whole experimence to be unquestionably traumatic regardless of whether or not the primate feels any serious pain?

If you know more about this method of testing than the person who's conducting it, by all means, I'm all ears. But if the PETA literature (sorry, i saw it wasnt A.L.F) says it's mean I don't put a lot of stock in it. but we're not here to debate the merits and methods of this persons work. do you have any references for the electrocution and ejaculation claim? I'm sure they used electrical impulses to induce ejaculation b/c it is a neural response and if you fire the correct stimulus you'll get the desired response...which is not electrocution.

I was thinking of primate-electroejaculation, which I guess is not actually electrocution now that I've looked it up. I heard it being discussed on am radio, and it sounded like someone was simply hooking up a couple of clamps to chimp's ballsack. It's actually a probe that is inserted into the rectum and adjacent to the prostate. The probe stimulates the prostate via a slight electric current. The question is whether you'd want your own pet being subjected to that kind of procedure. If not, then it's torture.

I AM saying that humans are more valuable than animals. I'm not saying animals aren't important and we should abuse them, I"m not saying that at all...but I'm also not saying they are on teh same level as humans. Furthermore, I believe since we are better than animals, we have an obligation to make sure we protect them. I'm sure that there cases where animals are abused in scientific work, I'm not naive. But I'm also fairly sure those instances are very few and very far b/t. You were able to give me enough information to find 4 researchers with questionnable procedures. There are thousands of people who do lab based experiments on animals and they dont do those things.

I am going to assume for a moment that this oversight body does enforce criteria that would be considered "humane". And you've acknoweldged that there is a portion of research that is done that is not humane.

What I'm getting at that without this oversight board, who knows just how inhumane it would really get. And would you then still call these researchers sick and heinous? How about the inhumane research that is being done? Are those researchers sick and heinous?

And that's why I say that nazi death doctors were not sick and heinous. They were given the opportunity to do what most people would do if they lived in a society where a certain race of people were thought of as animals.

chopitdown

sponger wrote:

You're asking me what the difference is between someone needing a procedure and someone not needing a procedure, but still receiving that procedure anyway because he/she doesn't have a choice and is thought of as a good experiment candidate? You're asking me what the difference is?

I could be wrong, but I would think that a person who just came out of surgery probably needs pain meds. Are these primates getting these pain meds? If so, do they enjoy being on pain meds? Do they enjoy being kept in a cage? You wouldn't think that whole experimence to be unquestionably traumatic regardless of whether or not the primate feels any serious pain?

I was assuming that pain and the barbaric appearance of the apparatus was your "sticking point" and I can see why that is a concern. Someone who has just had the surgery is on pain meds. I do not know if the primates are getting pain meds; if there is an issue with pain and treating the pain doesn't interfere with the dependent variables, i would see no reason why they wouldn't have them, but then again, i'm no neurologist. I don't think the primates enjoy being in a cage; i'm sure if they had their druthers (do animals have druthers?) they'd rather be out in the wild. I'm not trying to say that the experiment isn't traumatic b/c there is trauma involved, but the reason we have animal oversight committees is for this exact reason so animals aren't just toyed with and injured.

sponger wrote:

I was thinking of primate-electroejaculation, which I guess is not actually electrocution now that I've looked it up. I heard it being discussed on am radio, and it sounded like someone was simply hooking up a couple of clamps to chimp's ballsack. It's actually a probe that is inserted into the rectum and adjacent to the prostate. The probe stimulates the prostate via a slight electric current. The question is whether you'd want your own pet being subjected to that kind of procedure. If not, then it's torture.

If I signed my pet up for this I'm sure I'd come back after one day and he'd be smoking a cigarette saying "thanks"

sponger wrote:

I am going to assume for a moment that this oversight body does enforce criteria that would be considered "humane". And you've acknoweldged that there is a portion of research that is done that is not humane.

What I'm getting at that without this oversight board, who knows just how inhumane it would really get. And would you then still call these researchers sick and heinous? How about the inhumane research that is being done? Are those researchers sick and heinous?

And that's why I say that nazi death doctors were not sick and heinous. They were given the opportunity to do what most people would do if they lived in a society where a certain race of people were thought of as animals.

That's a fair assumption b/c that's their job. And yes, I acknowledge that I'm sure there is unethical research being conducted, even with the tightest regulations.

Yes, if those researchers are being unethical and being cruel to the animals w/o cause (some could argue some human research is cruel, but with informed consent that sort of makes everyone feel a little better about it) then they are sick people.

I see where you are going with saying hte nazis were not sick and heinous...we are just going to disagree on whether the person is sick and heinous..but we'll agree that the acts are.
and with that...i'm out; it's late.

sponger

The surgically attached weight on the primate's skull was sort of my sticking point, and you did have a point that it might not be as painful as it looks.

I just think that there will be a time in the future when all animal testing will be outlawed, all meat eating will be outlawed, and maybe even pets will be outlawed (as I think that pet breeding is inhumane). And we'll look back and say wtf were we thinking.

And it's of course hard for me to think that nazi death doctors were normal people. But, I also think it would be too much of a coincidence if they were actually mentally imbalanced. Dr. Mengele was not alone. Other doctors rotated between experiments. If they're sick, then where did the nazis come up with these guys? Were there other candidates who refused when offered that job?

It's just too much of a coincidence that a whole nation could suddenly go psychopathic overnight. I think it's just what happens when there is a police state.

callen

sponger wrote:

I just think that there will be a time in the future when all animal testing will be outlawed, all meat eating will be outlawed, and maybe even pets will be outlawed (as I think that pet breeding is inhumane). And we'll look back and say wtf were we thinking.

Couple questions for you...

First on pets...have an old 17 year old Mutt I got from pound when he was a pup...I'm thinking he's had an incredible life....yea I don't know that to be a fact...I didn't castrate him as I thought that was inhumane...but of course poor fella's still a virgin...now if we stop having pets...wouldn't most breed of dogs go extinct as they can't fend for themselves? Do you support that. Second, are you a vegetarian??? I've thought of this allot....but somehow feel its okay for me to eat meat as I am on the food chain and am a carnivore. I dooo love animals and force myself into denial and justify it.
thanks

Collin

sponger wrote:

Oedipus was a king. Kings represent an absolute monarchy. An absolute monarchy is different from fascism only in the sense that kings supposedly have some kind of bloodline superior to the commoner.

And that's why I think the Oedipus analogy actually supports my stance more than it counters it. Oedipus should never have been king. He should have been elected, and there should have been a parliament or something to that effect. Atrocities are what ALWAYS happen when there is too much of a centralized authority and not enough oversight.

I think you missed my point.

You said it's the apathy of the people that is heinous and sick instead of the doctors. You said it's the people's apathy that is the problem and not the war criminals. Because a regime allowed them to do those things and we "allowed" that regime to exist, we hold responsibility and punishing these criminals would be revenge? You said punishing them would be removing ourselves from responsibility. I disagree.

sponger

Collin wrote:

I think you missed my point.

You said it's the apathy of the people that is heinous and sick instead of the doctors. You said it's the people's apathy that is the problem and not the war criminals. Because a regime allowed them to do those things and we "allowed" that regime to exist, we hold responsibility and punishing these criminals would be revenge? You said punishing them would be removing ourselves from responsibility. I disagree.

Yes, that is correct. Holding war criminals responsible for their actions creates a false sense of finality.

I'm going to use slobodan milosevic as an example. He went to jail for being responsible for such terrible things as genocide, ethnic cleansing..etc.

But, it wasn't until Clinton needed a diversion from the Lewsinky trial that the US actually did anything about it. The bombing of Kosovo was a NATO operation, but it was predominantly a US led effort.

So, with that in mind, if it were not for Monica Lewinsky, Milosevic would have continued for years as the head of a mass murdering organization.

And this small detail is easily ignored because "justice" was carried out. Milosevic went to jail, and everybody felt better. If putting Milosevic in jail is necessary to disable the regime, then obviously it's a great idea. But, if it's just for the sake of punishing, then I think all it does is open the world up to more acts of genocide. This is because nobody really understood what the problem really was. The problem was that his acts of war crimes went on with the world's full knowledge, but was not dealt with until it served a political purpose for a world power. That is the real crime.

sponger

callen wrote:

Couple questions for you...

First on pets...have an old 17 year old Mutt I got from pound when he was a pup...I'm thinking he's had an incredible life....yea I don't know that to be a fact...I didn't castrate him as I thought that was inhumane...but of course poor fella's still a virgin...now if we stop having pets...wouldn't most breed of dogs go extinct as they can't fend for themselves? Do you support that. Second, are you a vegetarian??? I've thought of this allot....but somehow feel its okay for me to eat meat as I am on the food chain and am a carnivore. I dooo love animals and force myself into denial and justify it.
thanks

No I am not a vegetarian. I tried going veg for awhile, but it was difficult to find the protein that I needed. I know it's possible to find protein without eating meat, but it's just easier for me to throw a chicken breast on the grill.

Anyway, I'm not trying to preach. I'm not saying people should stop eating meat. I'm saying that's where we're going.

You picked up your pet from the pound. That differs from buying him at the pet store. When you pick up a pet from the pound, you are not contributing to the breeding problem.

Also, I think the more humane thing to do is to fix it. This is because being in heat is not a really enjoyable experience for the animal.

As for the extinction of breeds...I think a lot of those breeds are a result of man's creation. I'm not an expert on canine origins, but I think if it were not for man, a lot of these breeds would not exist. So if they go extinct, then so be it.

That was just a speculation of mine. If not the outright discontinuation of pet breeding, then there will probably be a law mandating that before a person can purchase a pet at a pet store, then that person will need a note from the local animal shelter stating that a suitable pet was not available. We just have to assume that the breeding problem will be dealt with in some form or another.

Collin

sponger wrote:

Yes, that is correct. Holding war criminals responsible for their actions creates a false sense of finality.

I'm going to use slobodan milosevic as an example. He went to jail for being responsible for such terrible things as genocide, ethnic cleansing..etc.

But, it wasn't until Clinton needed a diversion from the Lewsinky trial that the US actually did anything about it. The bombing of Kosovo was a NATO operation, but it was predominantly a US led effort.

So, with that in mind, if it were not for Monica Lewinsky, Milosevic would have continued for years as the head of a mass murdering organization.

And this small detail is easily ignored because "justice" was carried out. Milosevic went to jail, and everybody felt better. If putting Milosevic in jail is necessary to disable the regime, then obviously it's a great idea. But, if it's just for the sake of punishing, then I think all it does is open the world up to more acts of genocide. This is because nobody really understood what the problem really was. The problem was that his acts of war crimes went on with the world's full knowledge, but was not dealt with until it served a political purpose for a world power. That is the real crime.

I see your point, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree here.